Jyllands-Posten

The furore that is becoming known as the Danish controversy has been extremely unwelcome for me. But in the proud tradition of stating my opinion on global trends I cannot possibly affect, here's what I think.

It's all ridiculous.

The Jyllands-posten may have had the noble intentions they claim, and they may not. I know enough about the press that I would not be suprised to discover that the J-P makes it's bread by catering to racists in denial. We have a few semi-respectable papers here in Britain who do that. It makes me sad because if we're going to draw lines, then I support these people of unkown morality. It doesn't matter. They might be jackasses, but they have a right to be jackasses.

What confuses me is why it's been so controversial. Yes, they're offensive, because there are cartoons who cast aspersions in just about the widest possible way. Islam as a religion? Islamic thought? The intelectual tradition of the caliphate of Baghdad? Yeah, they're all tururists. That's offensive, though of course anyone holding that opinion has a right to express their moronic creed.

Drawing a picture of Mohammed, and one that demeans him as a person- not as a symbol for the noble and lewd sweep of civilization he stands for- I don't see the problem. Yes, it's offensive. Havn't we all had someone we respect made the victim of a meanigless jibe? It's an editorial cartoon. They're supposed to make random sections of the population angry. That's what they're for.

Depicting Mohammed is taboo in Islam, and the reason given for this is that it was meant to prevent very specific practices. Modern Muslims simply know that it's bad taste to draw the seal of prophets, and that's fair enough. But if someone else draws him.. let's say, secular Danes... what's the problem? Mohammed may have been a paragon of mankind. Maybe he had a unique relationship with god. OK. He was still just a man, and we both agree on that.

Even if we don't... why worry? Let the wicked have their mischief. Don't you believe they'll repent of it eventually?

Is drawing Mohammed with a fuse coming out of his head more offensive, or less, than saying that Allah copulated with human women and had children? Yet the Koran clearly says that just because someone commits shirk, doesn't mean you shouldn't treat them as brothers who have lost their way.

The Jyllands Posten published cartoons that were in por taste and had nothing to communicate. The sensible thing to do is to ignore them. That goes for all of us. Sadly, it seems that thtere are some people set on making them look like the good guys. Humans are suckers for a victim, and instead of turning the most minor of hurts into a victory, the world's Islamic population are now viewed as the most rabidly bellligerant going. It's a bitter shame.

My biggest worry in British law is that the "incitement to racial hatred" laws could be misused to prosecute idiots who are offensive. From there, Moderate and intelligent Muslims who hand out leaflets saying "God never had any mortal offspring" are probably next. Then I think it's probably me standing behind them saying "If you believe in any of that junk, you should take a long hard look at your epistomolgy".

And I don't want to go to prison for epistomology.

Why should I try to explain? When I do they turn away again.